Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Darren Smyth, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, David Brophy, Alberto Bellan and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate. You can email the Kats here

From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Monday, 10 December 2007

In a press release of 7 December 2007, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has reported that its First Civil Senate, which is responsible for copyright law (among other things), gave a ruling on 6 December 2007 that the legal duty under § 54(a)(1)(1) of the German Copyright Act to pay remuneration to copyright holders for technology capable of copying does not apply to normal, everyday computer printers.

The decision (case number: I ZR 94/05) is not yet available in its entirety but, in its press release, the court acknowledges that computer printers can be used to produce unlawful copies of protected works. The court also emphasises that whoever uses a computer printer often has a legal right to do so, i.e. when printing content from the internet for personal use or when printing information from a CD-ROM where the act of printing is already covered by the licence agreement. Case law on the use of photocopiers - in respect of which a levy is imposed - cannot be applied in analogy. The claimant, VG Wort, which represents copyright holders and authors in copyright matters, has issued a press release in which it calls the decision a “sell-out of copyright law”.

The IPKat thanks Birgit Clark for digging this up and translating it for him. He wonders whether there may be a question of double-accounting at stake, if the same acts of private copying that would be covered by a printer levy would also be covered by the computer to which the printer is attached. But Merpel says, these machines are so clever these days: they can print, scan, photocopy and do goodness-knows-what-else. Perhaps the time is ripe for extending the levy to cover them too.

Our good friend and scholar Alexander v. Mühlendahl has emailed us to add: "You may know or may not know that common practice in German courts, including the Federal Court of Justice, Germany's third instance court (appeals on points of law with leave to appeal) is that judgments are delivered at the end of the oral hearing, and it may take weeks or months before the written judgment is available. The Bundesgerichtshof proceeds in this fashion; but in very important cases they issue a press release the day of the judgment, thus satisfying the public's curiosity.

Therefore, the judgment below about which you report on the basis of the press release may not become available until some two or three months from now".

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!